COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDARD 


HX64099571 
Q  P45  .  K252  Misstatements  of  ant 


RECAP 


KEEN 
KI^STATBIENTS   OF  ANTr/r/ISECTIOillSTS 


QV4S 


XZlSZ^ 


Coltttnlna  (BnttJmftp 

Cottege  of  ^tJPJSiciansi  anb  ^urgeonjf 
Hibrarp 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/misstatementsofaOOkeen 


MISSTATEMENTS  OF 
ANT1V1V1SE6TI0NISTS 

CORRESPONDENCE  WITH    AMERICAN 
HUMANE  ASSOCIATION 


W.W.  Keen,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  F.R.CS.  (Hon.) 
Philadelphia 


Reprinted  from  the 

Journal  American  Medical  Association 

February  23,  1901 


1-5^ 


MISSTATEMENTS  OF  ANTIVIVISECTIONISTS. 

CORRESPONDENCE     WITH     AMERICAN     HUMANE 
ASSOCIATION. 


W.  W.  KEEN,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  F.R.C.S.  (Hon.) 

Late  President  of  the  American  Medical  Association  ;    Professor  of 

Surgery,   Jefferson  Medical  College. 

PHILADELPHIA. 


Letter  from  President  of  American  Humane  Association."^ 

Toledo,  Ohio,  Oct.  4,  lOOQ. 
Prof.   William    W.    Keen,    late    President   of   the   American 
Medical    Association,    Jefferson    Medical    College,    Phila- 
delphia. 

Dear  Sir: — My  attention  has  just  been  called  to  a  passage 
in  the  published  "Report  of  the  Hearings"  before  the  Senate 
committee,  held  at  Washington  last  February,  on  the  bill  for 
regulation  of  vivisection.  In  this  volume  the  following  con- 
versation between  Senator  Gallinger  and  j^ourself  is  recorded: 

SuxATOK  Gallin(!EK — What  knowledge  have  you  of  the  advances 
made  by  vivisectionists  that  have  led  them  to  progress  from  the 
brute  creation  to  the  human  creation  in  making  these  so-called 
vivisection  experiments? 

Dr.  Keen — I  presume  that  you  refer  to  a  pamphlet  issued  by 
the  American  Humane  Society.  I  have  only  to  say  in  reference 
to  it  that  there  were  a  number  of  experiments  which  I  would  utter- 
ly condemn.  Of  the  experiments  narrated  in  that  pamphlet,  I 
have  looked  up  every  one  that  I  could.  Only  two  are  alleged  to 
have  been  done  in  America.  Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  in- 
definite that  I  could  not  look  them  up,  but  sis  to  those  that  I  could, 
some  are  garbled  and  inaccurate  ;  not  all  of  them,  observe. 

Senator  Gali.ingbk — Some  of  them  V 

Dr.  Keen — Some  of  them. 

A  statement  of  this  character,  based  upon  such  authority, 
it  is  impossible  to  ignore.  Proceeding  from  one  less  eminent 
than  yourself  in  that  profession  which  you  represent  and 
adorn  it  might  pass  without  notice,  but  coming  from  you,  sir, 
such  a  charge  must  be  investigated  and  probed  to  the  fullest 
extent.  Its  importance  is  evident,  and  in  testing  its  accuracy 
you  will  give  me,  I  trust  every  assistance  within  your  power. 

*  Printed  by  permission. 


2 


First:  JRegarding  the  cases  of  experimentation  upon  human 
beings  recorded  in  our  pamphlet,  "Human  Vivisection,"  you 
informed  the  Senate  committee  that  "Many  of  them  are  so 
vague  and  indefinite  that  I  could  not  look  them  up."  We  chal- 
lenge the  accuracy  of  that  statement,  and  ask  for  proof.  Of 
the  various  series  of  experiments  upon  human  beings,  made  for 
the  most  part  upon  women  and  children  in  hospitals  and  in- 
firmaries, the  authorities  given  in  this  jaamphlet  are  as  follows : 

1.  Bulletin  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital,  July,  1897. 

2.  Boston  Med.  and  Surg.   Jour.,   Aug.   6,   and  13,   1896 ;   Phila. 
Polyclinic,  Sept.  5,  1896. 

3.  N.  y.  Med.  Record,  Sept.  10,  1892. 

4.  British  Med.   Jour.,   July  3,   1897  ;   New  England  Med.   Mo., 
March,  1898. 

5.  Medical    Press,    Dec.    5,    1888  ;    British   Med.    Jour.,    Aug.   29, 
1891 ;  London  Times,  June  27,  1891  ;  and  other  journals. 

6.  Medical  Brief,  June,  1899. 

7.  Ringer's  Therapeutics,  pp.  585,  588,  590,  591,  498,  503  ;    The 
Lancet,   London,   Nov.   3,    1893. 

8.  Newcastle   Daily   Chronicle,    Sept.    21,    1888. 

9.  Med.  Press  and  Cir.,   March  29,   1899  ;   The  Lancet,   London, 
May  6,  1899,  p.  1261. 

10.  Allg.  Wiener  med.  Zeitung,  Nos.  50  and  51. 

11.  Deutsche  med.   Woch.,   Nos.  46-48,   1894. 

12.  Ibid.,  Feb.  19,  1891. 

13.  Lecture  before  Medical  Society  of  Stockholm,  Sweden,  May 
12,   1891. 

14.  British  Med.  Jour.,  Oct.  15,  1881  ;  Medical  Reprints  for  May 
16,  1893  ;    Nineteenth  Century,  December,  1895. 

For  one  series  of  experiments  in  the  above  list,  those  made 
by  Dr.  Jansen  upon  children  of  the  "Foundlings"  Home" — with 
the  "kind  permission"  of  the  head  physician,  Professor  Medin — 
because,  as  he  said,  "calves  were  so  expensive,"  it  appears  that 
the  only  authority  given  was  a  reference  to  his  lecture  delivered 
before  a  Swedish  medical  society  upon  a  certain  date.  Al- 
though, so  far  as  known,  the  facts  there  stated  have  never 
been  denied,  yet  the  reference  may,  perhaps,  be  called  in- 
definite. But  one  case  is  not  "many."  To  what  other  of  the 
references  above  given  did  you  refer  when  you  informed  the 
Senate  committee  that  "Many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  in- 
definite that  I  could  not  look  them  up?"  Had  you  stated  that 
your  library — ample  as  it  is — did  not  contain,  and  could  not 
be  expected  to  contain,  all  of  the  foreign  authorities  to  which 
reference  was  made  there  would  have  been  nothing  to  criticize. 
I  must  assume,  sir,  that  you  have  not  put  forth  an  aspersion  of 
another's  reliability  merely  to  have  acknowledgement  of  the 
inadequacy  of  your  sources  of  reference;  that  the  proofs  of 
your  statement,  covering  "many"  cases,  are  available,  and, 
in  the  interest  of  accuracy,  I  ask  you  to  produce  them. 

Second:  There  is  yet  another  point  to  which  I  ask  your 
attention.  You  made  the  statement  before  the  Senate  commit- 
tee that  in  regard  to  our  published  account  of  cases  of  human 
vivisection,  "many  of  them  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  that  I 


could  not  look  them  up;   but,  as  to  those  that  I  could,  some  are 
garbled  and  inaccurate ;   not  all  of  them,  observe." 

This,  sir,  is  a  most  serious  charge.  You  distinctly  declared 
that  of  the  cases  personally  investigated  by  yourself,  as  quoted 
in  the  pamphlet  on  "Human  Vivisection,"  some  are  "garbled 
and  inaccurate."  We  deny  the  charge,  and  again  challenge  pro 
duction  of  evidence  upon  which  it  is  made. 

A  "garbled"  quotation  is  one  which,  by  reason  of  omission 
and  perversions,  is  essentially  unfair.  Sometimes  it  is  a 
statement  from  which  parts  are  omitted  or  transposed  for  the 
purpose  of  conveying  a  false  impression.  To  omit  quotation 
of  parts  not  directly  bearing  upon  the  question  for  the  sake  of 
brevity — this  is  not  "garbling,"  for  all  quotations  would  then 
be  impossible.  We  assert  that  in  quoting  accounts  of  the 
cases  of  human  vivisection  no  omissions  of  essential  facts  have 
been  made  sufficient  to  impair  the  accuracy  or  fairness  of  the 
quotation.  Let  us  put  the  matter  to  the  test.  Point  out,  if 
you  can,  the  "some  casts"  which  you  found  "garbled  and 
inaccurate,"  and  in  proof  of  the  charge  quote  the  omitted  sen- 
tences or  words  ichich^  had  they  been  inserted,  ivould  cause 
you  and  the  general  public  to  justify  and  approve  the  experi- 
ments on  liuman  beings  ichlch  we  have  so  severely  condemned. 

Third:  You  stated,  sir,  before  the  Senate  committee  that 
only  two  experiments  upon  human  beings  "are  alleged  to  have 
been  done  in  America."  I  question,  sir,  whether  that  remark 
is  quite  in  accord  with  the  highest  ideals  of  truth;  it  is  the 
language  of  doubt;  it  seems  to  signify  and  imply  that  even 
you  are  aware  of  no  other  experiments  upon  human  beings  than 
two  cases  which  are  thus  "alleged."  I  am  very  confident,  sir, 
that  you  will  not  venture  formally  to  assert — what  you  have 
seemed  to  imply- — that  you  know  of  but  two  experiments 
upon  human  beings  made  in  this  country  and  recorded  in  the 
medical  literature  of  the  United  States.  There  is  indeed  need 
of  further  enlightenment,  if  the  medical  profession  of  this 
country,  so  worthily  represented  by  yourself,  is  ignorant  of 
what  has  been  done  by  men  without  pity  and  without  con- 
science. 

Trusting  to  have  response  from  you  at  an  early  date,  I  am. 
Yours  most  truly,  James  M.  Brown,  President. 

DR.    keen's    reply. 

1729  Chestnut  Street. 
PlIILADELPHTA,    Pa.,    Jan.    21,    1001. 
J.\MES  ]\r.  Brown,  Esq..  President  American  Humane  Associa- 
tion, Toledo,  Ohio. 

Dear  ^ir: — Your  letter  of  October  4  reached  me  promptly, 
but  as  I  then  notified  you  would  be  the  ease,  very  pressing 
engagements,   absence,   etc.,  prevented   an   earlier  reply.      Now 


that  I  have  a  little  leisuie,  1  can  answer  your  letter  anil 
furnish  you  in  detail  the  proofs  for  which  you  ask. 

There  are  two  pamphlets,  both  entitled  "Human  Vivisection." 
First,  one  of  thirty  pages,  "printed  for  the  American  Humane 
Association,  1899;"  the  other  of  seven  pages,  "published  by 
the  Humane  Society,  Washington,  D.  C,"  without  date,  but 
from  its  contents  published  a  little  later,  as  it  is  chiefly  a 
synopsis  of  the  same  instances  reported  more  fully  in  the 
larger  pamphlet.  Hereafter  when  I  speak  of  "the  pamphlet''  I 
mean  the  larger  one,  unless  I  specifically  mention  the  smaller 
one. 

This  larger  pamphlet  consists  of  two  parts:  first,  (pp. 
3-12)  a  reprint  of  a  portion  of  "Senate  Document  No.  7S"  and 
the  rest  of  it  of  various  quotations,  translations  and  comments. 
No  name  is  attached  to  either  part  to  indicate  who  is  respon- 
sible for  the  accuracy  of  the  references,  the  translations  or  the 
quotations.  As  the  whole  is  preceded  by  an  open  letter  signed 
by  the  president  and  secretary  of  the  American  Humane 
Association,  and  as  you  refer  to  the  pamphlet  as  "ours,"'  I 
presume  the  association  holds  itself  responsible  for  such  accur- 
acy, especially  as  you  as  its  new  president  challenge  me  for 
proof. 

The  pamphlet  purports  to  furnish  a  reprint  of  a  portion  of 
"Senate  Document  No.  78,"  and  refers  to  this  document  in  a 
way  that  would  lead  uninformed  readers  to  suppose  that  this 
is  a  document  expressing  the  sentiments  of  the  United  States 
Senate.  It  is,  therefore,  important  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Senate  Document  No.  78  is  simply  a  collection  of 
statements  and  papers  by  various  persons,  printed  by  order  of 
the  Senate,  but  in  no  sense  expressing  the  opinions  or  convic- 
tions of  that  body.  The  last  paper  in  this  document  is  one 
on  "Human  Vivisection,"  by  "A.  Tracy." 

In  two  respects  "A.  Tracy"  has  a  right  to  complain  that  the 
reprint  is  inaccurate:  First,  it  omits  to  print  the  name  of  the 
author  "A.  Tracy."  Surely  he — or  she(?) — should  receive 
whatever  credit  there  is  attaching  to  his  work.  Secondly,  on 
page  30,  line  8,  of  Senate  Document  No.  78,  I  read  "A. 
Tracy's  comment.  ["This  patient,  therefore,  was  scientifically 
murdered."]  This  statement  the  reprint  very  wisely  omits — 
but  there  are  no  indications  of  the  omission.  Of  this,  more 
hereafter. 

Your  letter  challenges  the  accuracy  of  my  statements  in 
three  particulars:  1.  I  stated  that  many  of  the  references  in  the 
pamphlet  are  "vague  and  indefinite."  2.  I  said  that  some  of 
the  accounts  of  the  experiments  are  "garbled  and  inaccurate." 
3.  I  stated  that  of  the  experiments  narrated  in  the  pamphlet 
only   two   were   alleged   to   have   been   performed   in   America. 


You  will  pardon  me  if  I  indignantly  resent  your  imputation 
of  untruthfulness  in  regard  to  this  last  statement.  You 
entirely  misinterpret  my  statement,  which  had  no  reference  to 
my  knoAvledge  or  ignorance  of  any  other  American  experiments. 
I  said  that  the  pamphlet  only  contained  two  instances  of  such 
experiments  which  were  alleged  to  have  been  done!  in  America. 
These  are  recorded  on  pages  4  and  5  of  the  pamphlet.  All  the 
rest  were  done  in  Europe,  South  America,  and  Hawaii,  years 
before  it  came  into  our  possession.  If  you  still  question 
the  accuracy  of  my  statement  and  believe  that  there  is  a 
third  instance  of  experiments  done  in  America  and  described 
in  the  pamphlet,  point  it  out  by  page  and  paragraph. 

Turning  to  the  other  two  really  important  matters  referred 
to  in  your  letter,  let  me  again  state  clearly  the  question  at 
issue.  It  is  not  whether  the  experiments  meet  with  my 
approval,  but  solely  whether  the  reports  of  them  in  the  pamph- 
let issued  by  the  American  Humane  Association  are  reliable 
and  accurate  both  as  to  their  sources  and  substance. 

I.  MANY    OF    THE    REFERENCES    ARE    VAGUE    AND    INDEFINITE. 

The  references  are  so  vague  and  indefinite  in  many  cases  that 
the  statements  and  quotations  made  can  not  be  verified  by 
consulting  the  originals.  The  preface  of  your  president  and 
secretary  states  that  "in  each  case  the  authority  is  given," 
and  what  sort  of  "authority"  do  you  depend  upon?  Newspaper 
medicine  and  surgery  are  notoriously  inaccurate.  I  have  per- 
sonally had  so  much  experience  and  observation  of  this  that  I 
am  always  certain  that  at  least  one-half  or  more  of  the  state- 
ments in  newspapers  in  reference  to  medical  matters  are 
inaccurate,  not  purposely,  but  only  because  the  writers  are  not 
medical  men.  Yet  you  depend  for  the  accuracy  of  your  state- 
ments upon  newspapers  as  follows  (I  follow  the  inaccui'ate 
spelling  of  foreign  names  in  your  pamphlet)  : 

1.  The    Vienna    correspondent   of   the   London    Morning    Leader, 
Jan.  26,  1899   (p.  3),  of  whom  more  hereafter. 

2.  The  Deutsche  Volksblatt,   Jan.  25,  1899,    (p.   3.) 

3.  The    Washington    correspondent    of    the    Boston    Transcript 
_Sept.  24.  1897   (p.  9),  of  whom  more  hereafter. 

4.  The  N.  Y.  Independent,  Dec.  12,  1895   (p.  11). 

5.  The  London  Times.  June  27,  1891   (p.  16). 

6.  The  Tagliche  Rundschau  of  Berlin    (p.   17)  ;   no  year,   month 
or  day   being  given. 

7.  The    Vossische   Zeitung   of    Berlin,    no    year,    month    or   day 
being  given   (p.  18). 

8.  The  Vorwartz,  no  year,  month  or  day  being  given  (p.  18). 

9.  The  Danziger  Zeitung,  July  23.   1891    (p.   18). 

10.  The  Schlesische  Volkszeitung,  July  24.  1891    (p.  18). 

II.  The  Hamburger  Nachrichten,  July,  1891,  no  day  stated  (p. 
19). 

12.  A  correspondent  of  the  Newcastle  (England?)  daily  Chron- 
icle,  Sept.  21.   1888    (p.   22). 

13.  Dr.  R.  B.  Dudgeon,  in  the  Abolitionist,  April  15,  1899  (p. 
24). 

14.  A  letter  by  Dr.  Edward  Berdoe  to  the  London  Chronirlp. 
without  year,  month,  or  day  (p.  29). 


6 

Few  of  these  fourteen  newspaper  references  can  be  consulted 
in  this  country;  five  of  them  (Nos.  6,  7,  8,  11,  and  14)  are 
impossible  of  consultation  for  want  of  any  date  whatever. 

In  no  case  would  I  be  willing  to  admit  a  newspaper  para- 
graph, a  non-professional  and  usually  unsigned  statement — even 
if  correctly  quoted- — as  a  sufficient  authority  for  a  grave  charge 
against  an  individual  or  the  profession. 

Look  for  a  moment  what  stuff  Senator  Gallinger  stated  at 
the  "Hearing"  he  had  himself  caused  to  be  printed.  It  is 
published  on  page  31  of  the  "Hearing"  and  on  page  3  of  the 
pamphlet.  It  consists  of  cable  dispatches  printed  in  some 
newspaper — Senator  Gallinger  did  not  even  rememher  its 
name.  The  author  of  the  dispatch  from  London  is  utterly 
unknown.  The  dispatch  states  that  "the  Vienna  correspondent 
of  the  [London]  Morning  Leader  says'"  so  and  so.  Who  and 
how  reliable  is  the  Vienna  correspondent?  He  says  that  "the 
physicians  in  the  free  hospitals  of  Vienna"  do  so  and  so.  Who 
are  the  physicians?  In  what  hospitals  were  these  deeds  of 
darkness  done? 

And  upon  such  evidence  it  is  seriously  proposed  to  indict 
the  medical  profession!  Whether  these  dispatches  are  "garbled 
and  inaccurate"  in  their  alleged  facts  who  can  find  out? 

If  a  lawyer  tried  to  convict  a  man  of  petty  larceny  on  such 
testimony,  he  would  be  laughed  out  of  court.  An  yet  a  senator 
of  the  United  States  and  the  American  Humane  Association 
actually  adduce  such  statements  as  evidences  of  the  gravest 
charges  and  spread  them  broadcast! 

I  now  add  six  other  "vague  and  indefinite"  references  not  to 
newspapers. 

15.  On  page  13  there  is  a  quotation  from  Tertullian.  The 
reference  in  the  foot-note  is  '"Tertullian^  De  Anima,  Vol.  ii. 
pp.  430,  433,  Tran.,  by  Holmes."  I  have  compared  the  quota- 
tion with  Clark's  Edinburgh  edition  of  the  Translation  of 
Tertullian  by  Holmes,  the  date  of  the  edition  being  1870.  No 
such  quotation  exists  on  pages  430-433.  Possibly  it  may  be 
that  the  quotation  is  from  another  edition.  No  edition  is 
named  in  the  pamphlet;  another  instance  of  a  "vague  and 
indefinite"  reference. 

16.  On  page  17  a  formal  accusation  is  quoted  as  made  by  a 
Dr.  Eugen  Leidig  against  certain  surgeons.  No  reference 
lohatever  to  any  book  or  journal  is  given  by  which  the  accuracy 
of  the  quotation  can  be  tested.  Is  not  this  again  "vague  and 
indefinite?" 

17.  On  page  24  is  a  reference  to  a  paper  by  "Professor  E. 
Finger,  of  Vienna  {Allg.  Weiner  Med.  Zeitung,  Nos.  50  and 
51."  No  year  is  given,  a  somewhat  essential  part  of  the  refer- 
ence, as  there  are  over  forty  volumes  of  this  journal,  each  with 


the  weekly  numbers  50  and  51.  No  such  paper  by  Finger  is 
published  in  that  journal,  at  least  from  1890  to  the  present 
time.  The  reference  is  quoted  from  a  paper  by  Dr.  R.  E. 
Dudgeon  in  the  Abolitionist — an  English  journal — of  April  15, 
1899.  I  have  been  unable  to  consult  this  journal.  If  Dudgeon 
gave  the  year,  then  the  Humane  Association  pamphlet  has 
misquoted  him.  If  he  did  not,  then  both  the  Association's 
pamphlet  and  he  have  been  "vague  and  indefinite." 

18.  On  page  25  again  is  a  reference  to  a  statement  in  a 
"lecture  before  the  Medical  Society  of  Stockholm,"  by  Dr. 
Jansen,  of  the  Charity  Hospital,  reporting  certain  experi- 
ments. No  reference  whatever  is  given  even  to  a  newspaper, 
much  less  to  any  medical  journal.  As  the  statement  is  in 
quotation  marks  it  purports  to  be  the  exact  words  used  and 
ought  to  have  had  some  source  to  which  a  reference  was  possi- 
ble, especially  as  the  preface  of  the  pamphlet  says:  "In  each 
case  the  authority  is  given."  I  am  glad  to  see  that  in  your  let- 
ter you  recognize  this  as  one  in  which  the  reference  is  really 
inadequate.  I  notice,  however,  that  even  in  your  letter  you  do 
not  supply  this  missing  reference.  You  say  the  facts  asserted 
in  the  Jansen  paragraph  have  never  been  denied.  Of  course 
not.  The  first  requisite  is  to  know  whether  they  are  correctly 
quoted. 

Turning  now  from  the  larger  pamphlet  to  the  smaller  one, 
which  was  spread  broadcast  by  house  to  house-  distribution  in 
Washington  at  the  time  when  the  hearing  on  this  matter  took 
place  last  winter,  I  find  repeated  in  this  a  number  of  the 
same  vague  and  indefinite  references  and  garbled  and  inaccurate 
quotations  already  or  to  be  described,  to  which  are  to  be  added 
the  following: 

19.  On  page  3,  an  extract  from  a  report  referring  to  experi- 
ments upon  insane  patients  is  printed  in  quotation  marks.  The 
only  reference  is  to  a  "published  report"  in  1890  of  the  "Med- 
ical Staff  of  the  Public  Insane  Asylum  in  Voralberg.  Austria." 
The  librarian  of  the  Surgeon  General's  office  informs  me  that 
there  are  two  small  insane  asylums  in  the  Voralberg,  namely, 
at  Hall  and  Valduna.  Some  reports  of  the  former  are  in  the 
library  and  in  them  no  account  of  the  experiments  referred  to 
can  be  found.  No  reply  has  been  received  to  a  letter  addressed 
to  this  asylum  as  named  in  the  pamphlet  and  written  over  a 
year  ago.^ 

20.  On  the  same  page  is  an  account  of  some  experiments  on 
bacteria  from  boils,  and  the  reference  is  to  the  "Deutsches 
Volkshlatt ;"  no  day,  no  month,  no  number,  no  page,  nor  even 
the   year    is    given.      If    this    is    not    "vague    and    indefinite," 

■  what  is  ? 

1.   This  letter  was  written  by  myself  and  not  by  the  librarian. 


21.  On  page  24  there  is  an  account  of  Ki-oenig's  experiments, 
to  which  1  shall  recur  later.  No  reference  whatever  is  given 
to  the  source  from  which  the  account  is  taken. 

2.    SOME    OF    THE    STATEMENTS    ARE    GARBLED    AND    INACCURATE. 

To  be  vague  and  indefinite  in  charges  affecting  the  morals 
and  the  reputation  not  only  of  individuals,  but,  in  fact,  of  a 
whole  profession  is  bad  enough,  but  to  make  statements  that 
are  "garbled  and  inaccurate"  is,  as  your  letter  recognizes,  a 
much  more  serious  matter.  Let  me  consider  the  instances  in 
detail. 

1.  "Vivisection  Experiments  Upon  the  Insane,"  pages  4  and 
5 :  In  the  following  quotation,  the  words  of  the  original,  which 
I  enclose  in  brackets^  are  omitted.  "To  these  patients  the 
thyroid  tablets  [each  pill  representing  five  grains  of  the  fresh 
sheep's  gland]  were  administered,"  etc.  This  omission  is  of 
moment,  because  any  one  familiar  with  the  administration  of 
thyroid  extract  knows  that  the  doses  used  by  Dr.  Berkley  are 
frequently  given  to  human  patients,  including  the  insane, 
without  producing  symptoms  dangerous  to  life,  but  on  the 
contrary  with  benefit.  I  have  myself  given  such  tablets  to 
patients  with  goiter  for  weeks  together  in  larger  doses  than 
Dr.  Berkley  used. 

In  the  following  paragraph  the  quotation  is  garbled  by  omit- 
ting the  words  which  I  enclose  in  brackets:  "Two  patients 
became  frenzied  and  of  these  one  died  before  the  excitement 
had  subsided  [the  immediate  cause  of  the  exitus  being  an 
acute  disseminated  tuberculosis]."  And  again  in  the  next 
paragraph  giving  a  report  of  the  same  case,  the  pamphlet 
quotes:  "The  thyroid  extract  was  now  discontinued,  but  the 
excitement  kept  up  .  .  .  for  seven  weeks,  at  the  end  of 
which  time  she  died."  One  would  think  this  was  the  end  of 
the  sentence  and  that  she  died  from  the  effects  of  the  thyroid 
tablets.  Not  at  all.  The  original  continues  as  follows:  She 
died  "with  the  clinical  evidences  of  acute  miliary  tuberculo- 
sis"— galloping  consumption.  Does  this  not  come  within  the 
definition  of  garbling  given  in  your  letter?  "A  'garbled' 
quotation  is  one  which,  by  reason  of  omission  and  perversions, 
is  essentially  unfair."  To  say  that  this  patient,  who  actually 
died  of  galloping  consumption,  died  from  the  eflfects  of  the 
thyroid  extract,  which  had  not  been  given  for  seven  weeks  be- 
fore death,  is  as  absurd  as  it  would  be  to  say  she  had  died  from 
the  effects  of  moderate  doses  of  laudanum  given  seven  weeks 
before.  Yet  "A.  Tracy's"  comment  on  this  case  is:  "[This 
patient  was,  therefore,  scientifically  murdered]."  Your  Asso- 
ciation mutilates  its  reprints  by  wisely  omitting  this  piece  of 
absurdity,  though  the  omission  is  not  indicated.  Moreover, 
the   pamphlet   states:     "there   is   no    intimation   that   the   ad- 


9 

ministration  of  the  poisonous  substance  was  given  for  any 
beneficial  purpose  to  tlie  patients,  for  he  took  care  to  select 
patients  that  were  probably  incurable."  On  the  contrary, 
Berkley's  original  paper  expressly  states  that  instead  of  being 
incurable,  one  (Case  1)  was  cured  and  another  (No.  3)  was 
improved.  Besides  this,  though  the  pamphlet  is  dated  1899, 
it  omits  all  reference  to  Dr.  Berkley's  letter  to  the  British 
Medical  Journal  for  October  30,  1897,  in  reply  to  your  friend 
Dr.  Berdoe,  which  shows  that,  as  a  result  of  the  administration 
of  the  thyroid  tablets  to  these  eight  patients — a  well  recognized 
remedy  for  insanity,-  not  one  died  from  the  effects  of  the  drug 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  two  of  those  alleged  "incurables" 
were  cured — 25   per  cent. 

In  his  admirable  letter  to  Life — Dec.  6,  1900 — Dr.  Berkley 
says:  "The  purpose  for  which  the  article  was  written  was  to 
show  to  the  medical  profession  that  a  certain  7nedicament  in 
common  use  was  not  free  from  objection,  and  should  not  be 
given  in  unsuitable  cases.  In  proper  ones  the  results  are 
among  the  most  resplendent  attained  by  modern  medicine,  con- 
verting the  drooling  dwarf  into  an  intelligent,  well-grown 
man  or  woman;  or  in  other  instances,  as  in  myxedematous 
insanity,  affording  the  otherwise  hopelessly  insane  with  al- 
most a  specific  to  recover  their  reason."  [See  the  addendum  at 
the  end  of  this  letter.] 

2.  The  Cases  of  Lumbar  Puncture  by  Dr.  Wentworth,  of 
Boston,  (p.  5)  :  "Lumbar  puncture,"  I  may  remind  you,  is  the 
simple  insertion  of  a  hypodermic  needle  between  the  vertebrae 
into  the  sheath  of  the  spinal  cord,  but  below  the  cord  itself, 
to  obtain  a  few  drop  of  the  cerebro-spinal  fluid  for  diag- 
nosis. 

The  pamphlet  gives  Avhat  is  called  a  "brief  abstract"  of  five 
of  the  experiments  related.  The  abstracts  are  indeed  brief,  so 
brief  as  to  give  a  wholly  erroneous  impression  as  to  the  causes 
of  the  patients'  death.  The  omissions  are  glaring  instances  of 
what  the  logicians  call  a  suppressio  veri  equivalent  to  a  sug- 
gestio  falsi.     Let  me  point  this  out  in  detail. 

Case  2.  It  is  correctly  quoted  that  the  last  puncture  (where 
there  were  several  punctures  I  only  give  the  last  date)  was 
made  "Feb.  16,  on  the  day  of  patient's  death."  The  pamphlet 
fails  to  add,  however,  the  important  fact  stated  by  Dr.  '^Vent- 
worth   that  the   postmortem   showed   an   emi3ycma    [abscess   in 

2.  I  quote  the  following  from  the  eighth  edition  of  Hare's 
Therapeutics,  as  to  the  use  of  thyroid  extract :  "In  the  dose  of 
from  5  to  20  grains  (0.35-1.3)  three  times  a  day  [i.  e.  15  to  60 
grains  a  day]  according  to  the  degree  to  which  it  produces  its  ef- 
fects, it  has  proved  of  value  in  acute  mania  and  melancholia,  puer- 
peral and  climacteric  insanities,  and  in  stuporous  states  with  pri- 
mary dementia."    Berkley's  maximum  dose  was  15  grains  a  day. 


lU 

the  chest]  which  had  burst  into  the  lung,  pneumonia,  and  in- 
flammation of  the  brain  with  pus  as  the  cause  of  death. 

Case  3.  The  pamphlet  correctly  says  "puncture  Jan.  17, 
1896:  patient  died  Jan.  22."  What  Dr.  Wentworth  adds  is 
omitted,  namely:  "No  symptoms  attended  or  followed  the 
operation."  ^loreoA^er,  the  post-mortem  showed  that  the  pa- 
tient died  from  the  widespread  changes  common  to  infantile 
wasting. 

Case  5.  The  pamphlet  says:  "Puncture  Feb.  3,  1S9G;  patient 
died  Feb.  4.''  It  omits  to  state  what  immediately  afterward 
follows,  that  the  post-mortem  showed  "primary  tuberculosis  of 
the  intestines.     Double  pneumonia,"  as  the  causes  of  death. 

Case  6.  The  pamphlet  quotes  "Puncture  Feb.  1 ;  patient  died 
in  convulsions  three  weeks  later."  It  neglects  to  state  what 
Dr.  Wentworth  particularly  mentions,  "no  reaction  on  the  part 
of  the  patient  attended  the  operation."  and  it  also  fails  to  state 
that  the  child  was  seen  only  once  and  that  the  diagnosis  then 
made  was  tubercular  meningitis,  which  was  clearly  the  cause 
of  the  child's  death,  three  weeks  later. 

Case  7.  The  pamphlet  quotes  "Punctured  Feb.  27;  patient 
died  Feb.  28.  It  omits  the  fact  that  the  post-mortem  showed 
that  the  child  died  from  defective  development  of  the  brain  and 
other  causes:  and  that  the  history  showed  that  the  child, 
who  was  7  months  of  age,  had  "frequent  convulsions,  which  be- 
gan when  he  was  about  3  months  old.  While  in  the  hospital 
the  convulsions  occurred  not  less  than  twenty  times  a  day. 
Oftentimes  he  had  several  in  an  hour." 

The  inference  from  the  pamphlet's  "brief  abstracts"  of  these 
cases  is  clearly,  and  it  seems  to  me  by  these  omissions  was 
meant  to  be,  that  the  deaths  were  due  to  the  lumbar  punctures, 
whereas  the  evidence  is  that  the  deaths  were  due  to  other 
causes  and  in  two  instances  the  operation  is  expressly  stated 
not  t-o  have  done  any  harm.  Are  not  these  abstracts  "garbled 
and  inaccurate?" 

3.  On  page  7  the  pamphlet  refers  to  some  experiments  on  the 
inoculation  of  lepers  with  syphilis,  made  in  Hawaii,  but  pub- 
lished in  the  N.  T.  Medical  Record  of  Sept.  10,  1892.  It  is 
stated  that  the  patients  "were  already  suffering  from''  one 
incurable  disease  and  the  object  of  the  experiment  was  to  ascer- 
tain whether  with  another,  and  even  worse  disorder,  they 
might  not  be  infected."  This  statement  is  incorrect.  Most 
wi-iters  recognize  only  three  stages  of  syphilis,  primary,  sec- 
ondary and  tertiary.  The  writer  of  the  article  in  question 
believed  that  leprosy  was  a  fourth  and  final  stage  of  syphilis 
and  not  an  independent  disease.  It  is  a  well  recognized  fact 
by  all  scientific  wi-iters  that  a  patient  suffering  from  syphilis 
in  anv  stage  is  immune  to  an  inoculation  of  the  virus :    that 


11 

is  to  say.  the  inoculation  will  not  "take"  if  he  is  already  a 
syphilitic.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether 
leprosy  was  a  fourth  stage  of  sj'philis  that  the  attempt  was 
made.     Xone  of  those  inoculated  took  the  disease. 

4.  Sanarelli's  Experiments  on  the  Inoculation  of  Yellow 
Fever_,  page  8 :  The  references  here  are  to  the  British  Medical 
Journal  for  July  3,  1897,  and  the  Xeu:  England  Medical 
Monthly,  March,  1898.  The  extracts  marked  with  quotation 
marks  are  from  the  New  England  Medical  Monthly.  Between 
the  first  and  the  second  sentences  of  the  quotation  there  should 
be  some  stars  to  note  an  omission,  but  none  such  appear.  The 
omitted  words  state  that  not  the  germs  of  the  disease,  but  the 
carefully  filtered  and  sterilized  germ-free  fluid  was  used.  Be- 
sides this  and  many  other  minor  inaccuracies  many  of  the 
scientific  terms  are  changed  into  non-medical  terms,  which  is 
not  objectionable  in  itself.  But  .such  changes  and  inaccuracies 
should  exclude  quotation  marks,  for  when  used  they  m.ean  that 
the  words  quoted  are  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  author,  if 
in  the  same  language,  or  an  exact  translation  if  from  a  foreign 
language. 

But  this  is  the  least  of  all.  The  pamphlet  says  that  the 
injection  produced  certain  symptoms,  among  which  are  men- 
tioned ''the  jaundice,  the  delirium,  the  final  collapse,"  the  last 
three  words  being  in  italics  in  the  pamphlet  to  call  special  at- 
tention to  them.  In  the  British  Medical  Journal  and  in  the 
Xeic  England  Medical  Monthly  the  words  "the  final""  are  not 
to  be  found.  We  see  not  a  few  patients  suflfering  from  "jauii- 
dice.  delirium  and  collapse""  who  recover,  but  when  the  ex- 
pression is  changed  to  '"the  final""  collapse  it  means  to  every 
one  that  the  patient  died. 

Moreover,  the  end  of  the  quotation  is  as  follows:  "T  have 
seen  [the  sjTnptoms  of  yellow  fever]  unrolled  before  my  eyes 
thanks  to  the  po'.ent  influence  of  the  yellow  fever  poison  made 
in  my  laboratory.""  This  entire  sentence  does  not  occur  either 
in  the  British  Medical  Journal  or  in  the  yew  England  Medical 
Monthly.  Whether  it  is  quoted  from  some  other  source  not 
indicated,  or  has  been  deliberately  added.  I  leave  you  or  "A. 
Tracy"'  to  explain. 

Moreover,  immediately  afterward,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Washington  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Transcript,  it  is 
stated:  "It  is  understood  that  some,  if  not  all,  of  the  persons 
inoculated  died  of  the  disease."  and  then  seven  times  after- 
ward are  repeated  "the  final  collapse."  the  "unrolling  before 
Ihe  eyes,"  '"'scientific  assassination."  "death."  and  "murder" 
quoted  from  a  public  speech  before  the  American  Humane 
Association.     Let  us  see  if  these  were  "murders." 

In  the  two  references  siven  there   is  no  indication   whether 


12 

any  of  these  patients  died  or  not.  How,  therefore,  "it  is  under- 
stood that  some,  if  not  all,  of  them  died,"  I  do  not  know. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  none  of  the  human  beings  inoculated  by 
Sanarelli  died,  as  any  one  desirous  of  learning  the  truth  could 
have  ascertained  by  consulting  Sanarelli's  original  publication 
reporting  his  experiments  with  full  details.  (Annali  d'Igiene 
Sperimentale,  1897,  vol.  vii,  Fascic.  iii,  pp.  345  and  433.) 

What  hysterical  oratory  about  "the  final  collapse,"  which 
was  not  final;  "scientific  assassination,"  which  did  not  as- 
sassinate; and  "murder"  of  those  who  were  so  disobliging  as- 
still  to  live !  And  this  on  the  authority  of  the  Washington  cor- 
respondent of  the  Boston  Transcript,  who  the  pamphlet  as- 
sures us  is  a  person  "who  would  seem  to  be  unusually  well  in- 
formed in  matters  of  science!"  An  excellent  example  of  "news- 
paper medicine''  and  a  good  reason  for  my  refusal  to  accept  it 
as  evidence,  especially  from  other  correspondents  Avho  may  not 
be  as  "unusually  well  informed."  May  I  ask  whether  "the 
Vienna  correspondent  of  the  London  Morning  Leader"  is  also 
one  of  those  who,  in  your  opinion,  is  "unusually  well  informed 
in  matters  of  science,"  and  whether  his  testimony  is  as  wholly 
false  as  the  one  under  consideration? 

5.  On  page  23,  the  pamphlet  quotes  an  account  of  some  ex- 
periments of  Dr.  Neisser  from  the  "Medical  Press  and  Circular 
[England],  of  March  29,  1899."  This  is  an  instance  again  of 
misquotation  and  omission  which  can  scarcely  be  other  than 
intentional.  The  last  sentence  of  the  first  quotation  states: 
"of  these  eight  girls,  four  developed  syphilis."  No  stars  in- 
dicate that  any  words  have  been  omitted.  The  original  reads: 
"of  these  eight  girls  [five  were  prostitutes,  and  of  these  five] 
four  developed  syphilis."  The  words  in  brackets  are  entirely 
omitted  in  the  pamphlet.  They  make  a  deal  of  difference,  for 
what  is  more  probable  than  that  four  out  of  five  prostitutes- 
should  develop  syphilis?  Whether  it  makes  any  differences  or 
not,  however,  is  at  present  not  the  question.  The  issue  i& 
whether  the  quotation  is  "garbled  and  inaccurate."  Does  it 
not  fulfill  another  of  the  definitions  of  "garbling"  given  in  your 
letter,  viz:  "omissions  of  essential  facts  .  .  .  ,  sufficient 
to  impair  the  accuracy  or  fairness  of  the  quotation?" 

Moreover  the  pamphlet's  comment  upon  this  case  is  as  fol- 
lows: "Does  the  London  journal  which  reports  these  awful  ex- 
periments denounce  them  as  a  crime  against  every  law  of  mor- 
ality? Not  at  all.  It  simply  says  that  'it  would  be  difficult 
to  acquit  Dr.  Neisser  of  a  large  measure  of  responsibility  in 
respect  of  the  causation  of  syphilis  in  these  eases!'  Could  re- 
proof be  more  gentle?" 

Is  that  really  all  that  the  Medical  Press  and  Circular  "sim- 
ply says?"     On  turning  to  that  journal,  after  the  above  sen- 


13 

tence,  which  is  correctly  quoted,  the  editorial  continues  thus: 
'"We,  however,  are  less  concerned  in  establishing  the  culpability 
of  Dr.  Xeisser  than  in  condemning  the  spirit  which  prompted 
such  experiments.  All  measures,  even  if  novel,  which  may 
reasonably  be  expected  to  assist  in  bringing  about  the  recovery 
of  the  patient  without  injury  to  his  health  ma^'  legitimately 
be  resorted  to  with  the  consent  of  the  patient,  but  measures, 
whether  b}-  drugs  or  by  operation,  which  have  not  for  direct 
object  the  cure  of  the  patient  and  which  may  prove  inimical  to 
his  health  or  condition,  are  inadmissible  under  any  circum- 
stances and  must  expose  the  perpetrator  to  professional  os- 
tracism and  to  penal  rebuke." 

Is  "prolessional  ostracism  and  penal  rebuke"  a  reproof  than 
which  nothing  could  be  "more  gentle?''  If  this  statement  is 
not  "garbled  and  inaccurate,"  what  do  words  mean?  How 
could  this  misrepresentation  be  otherwise  than  intentional? 

6.  On  page  24  again,  reference  is  made  to  the  experiments  of 
Menge.'  The  extracts  being  in  quotation  marks  would  purport 
to  be  exact  translations.  This  is  not  the  case.  The  collocation 
of  the  paragraphs,  also — especially  in  the  smaller  pamphlet — 
is  such  that  it  would  be  supposed  even  by  a_  careful  reader  that 
the  babies  experimented  upon  were  inoculated  with  the  germs 
taken  "from  the  pus  in  the  abdominal  cavity  of  a  person  who 
had  died  of  peritonitis."  without  any  precautions  or  preliminary 
experiments,  and  that,  therefore,  these  babies  were  exposed  to  a 
fatal  infection.  This  is  not  true.  Four  columns  of  text  in  the 
original  intervene  between  the  first  and  the  second  paragraphs 
alleged  to  be  quoted,  and  these  detail  experiments  -which  proved 
that  the  inoculations  which  he  then  carried  out  would  almost 
certainly  be  harmless.  The  result  showed  that  he  was  right, 
for  not  the  ^lightest  ill  effects  followed.  I  have  only  words  of 
condemnation  for  Menge's  experiments,  but  to  misrepresent 
these  experiments  is  scarcely  less  culpable  than  to  perform 
them. 

7.  Then  follows  a  brief  account  of  Kroenig's  experiments. 
The  objects  of  these,  the  pamphlet  says,  were  "to  observe  the 
surest  way  of  'breeding  purulent  bacteria."  This  is  not  true. 
On  the  contrary,  his  object,  like  Menge's,  was  to  determine  how 
these  bacteria  are  normally  destroyed  in  the  part  of  the  body 
in  which  the  experiments  were  made.  In  only  a  single  instance 
did  any  ill  effects  follow,  and  in  this  case  the  inflammation  was 
brief  and  not  dangerous  either  to  life  or  health.  In  fact,  the 
very  titles  of  these  two  papers  proclaim  the  destruction  of  the 
bacteria  and  not  the  surest  way  of  breeding  them,  as  Menge's 
title  reads:  "On  a  quality  (Verhalten)  of  the  vaginal  secretion 

3.  Deutsche    medicinishe    Wochenschrift,    1894,  Xos.  46  to  48. 


14 

in  non-pregnant  females,  which  is  hostile  to  bacteiia,"  and 
Kroenig's  is  on  the  same  peculiarity  in  pregnant  women. 

In  the  comment  on  these  two  sf-ries  of  experiments,  they  are 
spoken  of  as  inoculations  "with  loathsome  diseases,"  which 
would  suggest  to  any  one  that  the  patients  were  successfully 
inoculated  with  syphilis  or  other  similar  diseases.  This  was 
not  the  case.  Only  inflammation  would  follow  even  had  the 
inoculations  been  successful. 

Moreover,  to  show  the  vagnie  looseness  of  the  alleged  quota- 
tions, the  two  paragraphs  on  the  experiments  of  Menge  are  in 
quotation  marks  and  are  introduced  by  the  words,  "He  says: 
The  bacteria  I  used,  etc.,"  as  if  they  were  exact  continuous 
translations.  "He  says"  nothing  of  the  kind.  Instead  of  being 
exact  translations,  the  first  paragraph  is  made  up  of  partly 
correct  and  partly  incorrect  translations  from  page  891  near 
the  top  of  the  second  column  and  near  its  middle;  and  the 
second  paragraph  of  partly  correct  and  partly  incorrect  trans- 
lations from  page  907  near  the  bottom  of  the  first  column.  No 
reference  whatever  is  given  to  Kroenig's  paper  either  by  num- 
ber, date  or  page.  Is  not  this  "vague  and  indefinite?"  As  a 
matter  of  fact  it  is  the  same  journal  (No.  43,  p.  819)  as 
Menge's  paper,  but  published  three  weeks  earlier. 

8.  On  page  25  is  one  of  the  most  outrageous  instances  of 
garbling,  and  mistranslation,  or  worse,  which  I  have  ever  known 
to  be  perpetrated,  even  in  antivivisectionist  publications.  It 
relates  to  observations  and  experim,  'its  of  Professor  Schreiber. 
reported  in  the  Deutsche  medicinische  Wochenschrift  of  Feb. 
19,  1891.  The  subject  is  introduced  with  the  startling  caption: 
"Inoculations  with  Tuberculin  and  Germs  of  Consumption."  In 
the  smaller  pamphlet  the  caption  is  simply:  "Injected  Germs 
of  Consiunption."  What  was  injected  was  not  the  "germs  of 
consumption"  at  all,  but  tuberculin,  a  substance  which  at  the 
date  of  Professor  Schreiber's  publication  was  engaging  the  at- 
tention of  physicians  throughout  the  civilized  world  as  a 
therapeutic  and  diagnostic  agent.  To  describe  inoculations 
with  tuberculin  as  "inoculations  with  the  germs  of  consump- 
tion" can  be  attributed  only  either  to  gross  ignorance  or  to  wil- 
ful disregard  of  the  truth. 

In  the  first  paragraph  occurs  the  sentence:  "He  began  with 
one  decimilligram  and  continued  to  inject  the  tuberculin  in 
ever-increasing  quantities,  until  he  at  last  injected  as  much  as 
5  centigrams,  about  50  times  as  much  as  Koch  said  was  the 
maximum  dose  for  children  of  3  to  5  years  old."  Any  fair 
presentation  of  these  experiments  would  have  included  Profes- 
sor Schreiber's  sentence,  which  he  prints  in  bold-face  type :  "But 
even  with  so  large  a  dose  injected  at  one  time,  the  children 
showed  no  trace  of  a  reaction."  It  would  perhaps  be  too  much  to 


15 

expect  your  society  to  have  indicated  on  what  grounds  Professor 
Schreiber  was  led  to  the  employment  of  such  large  doses,  and 
that  his  observations  demonstrated  for  young  infants  an 
exceptional  tolerance  of  tuberculin,  a  phenomenon  for  which 
there  are  analogies  with  other  drugs. 

But  the  worst  falsification  is  the  succeeding  account,  in  the 
form  of  what  purports  to  be  an  exact  translation,  of  Schreiber's 
inoculation  of  a  boy  Avith  tuberculin.  The  alleged  quotation 
begins:  "I  am  sorry  to  say  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  obtain 
subjects  for  such  experiments.  There  are,  of  course,  plenty  of 
healthy  children  in  consumptive  families,  but  the  parents 
are  not  always  willing  to  give  them  up."  The  words:  "I  am 
sorry  to  say  that,''  and  the  entire  next  sentence,  "There  are, 
of  course,  plenty  of  healthy  children,""  etc.,  are  not  in  the 
original,  but  are  additions  made  out  of  the  whole  cloth.  Tlie 
next  following  sentences  contain  many  inaccuracies,  such  as 
the  translation  of  the  German  words  betrdchtlich  ansohwollen 
as  "swelled  up  enormously,"  instead  of  "swelled  up  considera- 
bly." But  the  worst  is  the  deliberate  insertion  of  the  follow- 
ing sentence,  italicized  in  the  pamphlet,  lohich  also  does  not 
occur  in  the  original:  "I  can  not  yet  say  whether  the  boy  will 
be  consumptive  in  consequence  of  my  treatment."  The  correct 
translation  of  Schreiber's  words  at  the  point  where  this  closing 
sentence  appears  in  the  pamphlet  is  as  follows:  "I  could  dis- 
cover no  other  alterations  in  the  otherwise  apparently  healthy 
boy."'  [Andere  Verdnderungen  konnte  ich  an  dem  sonst  gesund 
scheinenden  Knaben  nicht  entdecken."] 

While  I  have  said  enough  about  this  case  to  substantiate  my 
charge  of  garbling  and  inaccuracy,  I  can  not  refrain  from 
utilizing  it  also  to  show  the  utter  misapprehension  which  the 
citation  of  detached  sentences  and  paragraphs  from  medical 
articles  is  calculated  to  create  in  the  mind  of  a  non-medical 
reader.  Even  when  the  words  are  quoted  correctly,  they  are 
likely,  when  detached  from  the  context,  to  give  rise  to  entirely 
false  impressions.  This  is  a  criticism  which  applies  not  only 
to  other  examples  cited  in  this  pamphlet,  but  to  a  very  large 
number  of  reports  of  experiments  and  of  quotations  from  med- 
ical journals  and  books  current  in  anti-vivisectionist  writings, 
and  the  resulting  dissemination  of  erroneous  conceptions  is 
often  greater  even  than  that  caused  by  inaccurate  or  garbled 
quotations.  A  brief  explanation  of  the  present  example  will 
show  the  justification  of  this  charge. 

For  what  purpose  did  Professor  Schreiber  inoculate  the  Imy 
with  tuberculin?  His  article  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the 
answer.  He  points  out  the  importance  of  the  earliest  possible 
recognition  of  tuberculosis  in  a  patient  in  order  to  secure  the 
best    curative    results.      The    boy's    mother    had    consumption 


16 

and  the  author  calls  attention  to  the  frequency  of  unrecognized 
tuberculosis  in  the  offspring  of  tuberculous  parents.  The 
boy  received  a  small  dose — 1  milligram — of  tuberculin,  which, 
if  he  were  free  from  tuberculosis  would  produce  no  effect  but 
which  if  he  had  unsuspected  tuberculosis  would  produce  a  tran 
sient — though  possibly  a  severe — fever,  and  a  local  reaction  in 
dicative  of  tuberculosis.  Such  reaction  followed  the  injection  of 
tuberculin,  and  the  diagnosis  of  tuberculosis,  which  had  not 
been,  and  very  likely  could  not  have  been,  made  in  any  other 
way,  was  established.  I  do  not  know  what  could  have  been 
more  fortunate  for  this  boy  than  the  recognition  in  its  in 
cipiency  of  a  disease  previously  unsuspected  and  which,  recog- 
nized thus  early,  should  in  all  probability  be  cured  by  proper 
treatment.  This  tuberculin  test  is  constantly  employed  to  pre- 
vent the  spread  of  tuberculosis  in  our  cattle.  In  our  children 
it  enables  us  to  discover  the  same  disease  in  an  early,  curable 
stage.  Shall  we  care  for  our  cattle  better  than  for  our  chil- 
dren ? 

Its  use  is  not  properly  to  be  called  an  "experiment"'  at  all. 
As  I  write  this,  I  find  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Med- 
ical Association  for  Jan.  12,  1901,  page  75,  three  cases  of  the 
use  of  tuberculin  in  human  beings  by  Prof.  J.  M.  Anders,  who 
points  out  its  value  in  enabling  us  to  diagnosticate  consump- 
tion "in  latent  forms  and  dubious  cases,  however  incipient," 
long  before  percussion  or  the  stethoscope  will  reveal  the  dis- 
ease. I  can  imagine  his  surprise  if  he  were  charged  with 
making  three  horribly  cruel  "experiments"  and  injecting  the 
"germs   of   consumption ! "' 

It  is  euphemism  to  call  such  an  alleged  quotation,  in 
which  words  and  one  entire  sentence  are  interpolated  and 
another  wholly  changed  in  meaning,  a  "mistranslation"  or 
even  a  "garbled  and  inaccurate"  account.  Does  it  not  amount 
to  literary,  forgery?  It  is  another  illustration  of  the 
fact  that  when  an  anti-vivisectionist  attempts  to  say  anything 
about  scientific  experiments  either  the  moral  sense  is  blunted 
or  the  truth-telling  faculty  is  in  abeyance.  A  good  English 
example  is  the  misstatements  in  Miss  Frances  Power  Cobbe's 
book,  laid  bare  by  Victor  Horsley,  and  Schreiber's  and  San- 
arelli's  cases  will  serve  as  excellent  examples  of  American  mis- 
representation— if  so  long  a  word  is  needed  to  describe  them. 

I  am  sorry  my  reply  is  so  long,  but  in  fewer  words  I  could 
not  explain  the  many  and  gross  errors  to  be  pointed  out.  I 
have  given  you  indeed  "many"  instances  in  Avhich  the  references 
are  "vague  and  inaccurate,"  and  "some"  in  which  the  accounts 
are  "garbled  and  inaccurate."  These  adjectives  are,  I  submit, 
very  mild  ones  to  apply  to  such  a  pamphlet. 

You   can   hardly  be   surprised   after   the   extraordinary   and 


17 

repeated  interpolations,  mistranslations  and  worse  wliich  1 
have  demonstrated  in  this  letter  that  I  am  unwilling  to  accept 
<iny  alleged  quotation  or  translation  emanating  from  the 
American  Humane  Association  as  accurate  and  truthful  unless 
I  can  compare  it  with  the  source  from  which  it  is  derived. 

In  conclusion  let  me  commend  to  the  "Humane"  Association 
the  closing  words  of  President  Eliot's  letter,  to  be  found  on 
pages  218-9  of  the  "Hearing":  "Any  attempt  to  interfere  with 
the  necessary  processes  of  medical  investigation  is,  in  my 
judgment,  in  the  highest  degree  inexpedient  and  is  funda- 
mentally inhuman." 

I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  publishing  my  rejjly.  I  suppose 
that  you  will  not  object  to  the  publication  of  your  letter  with 
it  in  order  to  explain  the  reason  for  the  reply. 

Very  respectfully  yours,  William  W.  Keen,  ]\I.D. 

ADDENDUM. 

Since  this  letter  was  written  I  have  seen  an  article  in 
"Gould's  Year  Book  of  Medicine  and  Surgery,"  1901  (Medical 
Volume,  p.  327) ,  from  the  Archives  of  Pediatrics  for  Jime.  1900. 
p.  431,  by  H.  Oliphant  Nicholson  of  Edinburgh,  Scotland,  re- 
porting the  case  of  Annie  C,  a  girl  of  2  years  and  8  months  old, 
with  pictures  (see  plate),  Avhich,  with  a  brief  statement  of  the 
case,  well  illustrates  what  Dr.  Berkley  has  asserted,  that  "in 
proper  cases,  the  results  [of  the  treatment  by  thyroid  extract] 
are  among  the  most  resplendent  attained  by  modern  medicine, 
converting  the  drooling  dwarf  into  an  intelligent,  well-grown 
man  or  woman." 

This  child  was  first  seen  by  Dr.  Nicholson  on  October  23, 
1894,  and  the  picture  shows  the  "swollen,  myxedematous-look- 
ing  face  and  body,  a  markedly  curved  back  and  a  pendulous  ab- 
domen." The  child  "could  not  walk  without  support  and 
dragged  her  limbs  slowly  after  her."  Her  vocabulary  was  con- 
fined to  calling  her  mother  and  father  "mum"  and  "ah,"  and 
"her  wishes  were  wholly  made  evident  by  signs."  Very  natur- 
ally, therefore,  with  this  low  graae  of  intelligence,  she  was 
.uncleanly  in  her  habits. 

The  treatment  was  begun  on  October  30,  with  2.5  grains  of 
thyroid  powder,  once  daily.  This  was  reduced  on  November  2 
to  1.25  grains  once  a  day,  and  was  continued  for  several  weeks. 
As  early  as  November  7,  improvement  was  noticed.  On  Novem- 
ber 17  the  pulse  at  the  wrist,  which  was  scarcely  perceptible 
through  the  swollen  tissues  at  the  beginning  of  the  treatment, 
was  distinctly  felt,  and  by  the  24th,  the  puffiness  of  the  eyelids 
and  forehead  were  diminishing  and  the  expression  of  the  face 
becoming  more  intelligent.  The  dose  of  the  extract  was  now 
increased  again  to  2.5  grains.  The  results  I  quote  as  follows: 
"In  about  three  months'  time  very  few  traces  of  cretinism  re- 


Illustrating    Nicholsou's    article    on    thyroid    treatment    in    a   cretiik 
fArcli.  of  Ped.,  June.   1900). 


19 


Result  of  four    iiinnllis'   >isi'  of  thyroid  extract. 


20 

uiained  and  the  child  was  able  to  walk  about  easily  without  as- 
sistance and  was  making  use  of  the  short  woi'ds  and  gestures  of 
early  childhood.  .  .  .  After  four  months  of  the  thyroid 
treatment,  the  improvement  seemed  so  complete  that  the  second 
photograph  was  taken  and  the  likeness  produced  is  that  of  a 
bright,  happy,  pretty  child,  to  all  appearances  normal,  both 
physically  and  mentally.  The  improvement  continued  till  the 
middle  of  June,  1895,  when,  unfortunately,  she  contracted  an 
attack  of  malignant  measles  and  died  on  July  16,  after  three 
days'  illness." 

If  Dr.  Berkley's  use  of  the  thyroid  extract,  which  cured  two 
out  of  eight  patients  was  an  experiment,  and  its  administration 
by  Dr.  Nicholson  also  was  an  experiment,  the  more  of  such 
happy  "experiments"  we  could  have,  the  better. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

C28(638)M50 

QP45  X262 

Keen 

Misstatements  of  antivivisection- 
ists* 


MG 


^,^^^      C.  U^...^,,, 


1 


la 


?*, 


\ 


